Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 581	control, N = 291	treatment, N = 291	p-value2
age	58	50.60 ± 12.71 (25 - 74)	49.40 ± 13.03 (25 - 74)	51.80 ± 12.50 (31 - 72)	0.476
gender	58				0.780
f		39 (67%)	19 (66%)	20 (69%)
m		19 (33%)	10 (34%)	9 (31%)
occupation	58				0.923
day_training		1 (1.7%)	1 (3.4%)	0 (0%)
full_time		6 (10%)	4 (14%)	2 (6.9%)
homemaker		4 (6.9%)	2 (6.9%)	2 (6.9%)
other		2 (3.4%)	0 (0%)	2 (6.9%)
part_time		9 (16%)	5 (17%)	4 (14%)
retired		14 (24%)	6 (21%)	8 (28%)
self_employ		2 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)
student		1 (1.7%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.4%)
t_and_e		2 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)
unemploy		17 (29%)	9 (31%)	8 (28%)
marital	58				>0.999
divore		5 (8.6%)	3 (10%)	2 (6.9%)
married		13 (22%)	6 (21%)	7 (24%)
none		34 (59%)	17 (59%)	17 (59%)
seperation		3 (5.2%)	2 (6.9%)	1 (3.4%)
widow		3 (5.2%)	1 (3.4%)	2 (6.9%)
edu	58				0.941
bachelor		18 (31%)	9 (31%)	9 (31%)
diploma		9 (16%)	6 (21%)	3 (10%)
hd_ad		2 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)
postgraduate		6 (10%)	3 (10%)	3 (10%)
primary		4 (6.9%)	1 (3.4%)	3 (10%)
secondary_1_3		4 (6.9%)	2 (6.9%)	2 (6.9%)
secondary_4_5		14 (24%)	7 (24%)	7 (24%)
secondary_6_7		1 (1.7%)	0 (0%)	1 (3.4%)
fam_income	58				0.817
10001_12000		3 (5.2%)	1 (3.4%)	2 (6.9%)
12001_14000		3 (5.2%)	2 (6.9%)	1 (3.4%)
14001_16000		5 (8.6%)	2 (6.9%)	3 (10%)
16001_18000		2 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)	1 (3.4%)
18001_20000		3 (5.2%)	3 (10%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		9 (16%)	6 (21%)	3 (10%)
2001_4000		6 (10%)	3 (10%)	3 (10%)
4001_6000		9 (16%)	4 (14%)	5 (17%)
6001_8000		6 (10%)	3 (10%)	3 (10%)
8001_10000		4 (6.9%)	1 (3.4%)	3 (10%)
below_2000		8 (14%)	3 (10%)	5 (17%)
medication	58	48 (83%)	25 (86%)	23 (79%)	0.487
onset_duration	58	15.09 ± 12.16 (0 - 56)	17.01 ± 13.49 (1 - 56)	13.17 ± 10.56 (0 - 35)	0.233
onset_age	58	35.51 ± 13.74 (15 - 64)	32.39 ± 11.95 (16 - 55)	38.63 ± 14.87 (15 - 64)	0.084
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 581	control, N = 291	treatment, N = 291	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	58	3.24 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	3.21 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)	3.28 ± 1.19 (1 - 5)	0.832
recovery_stage_b	58	17.98 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)	17.93 ± 2.84 (9 - 23)	18.03 ± 2.49 (14 - 23)	0.883
ras_confidence	58	30.22 ± 4.73 (19 - 40)	29.76 ± 4.34 (19 - 40)	30.69 ± 5.13 (20 - 39)	0.459
ras_willingness	58	12.12 ± 1.99 (7 - 15)	12.07 ± 1.77 (9 - 15)	12.17 ± 2.22 (7 - 15)	0.845
ras_goal	58	17.45 ± 2.87 (12 - 24)	17.48 ± 2.73 (12 - 23)	17.41 ± 3.04 (12 - 24)	0.928
ras_reliance	58	13.29 ± 2.91 (8 - 20)	13.07 ± 2.72 (8 - 18)	13.52 ± 3.11 (8 - 20)	0.562
ras_domination	58	9.95 ± 2.24 (3 - 15)	10.48 ± 1.88 (7 - 15)	9.41 ± 2.46 (3 - 14)	0.068
symptom	58	30.12 ± 9.75 (14 - 56)	29.66 ± 9.27 (14 - 48)	30.59 ± 10.35 (15 - 56)	0.720
slof_work	58	22.22 ± 4.83 (10 - 30)	22.41 ± 4.52 (15 - 30)	22.03 ± 5.19 (10 - 30)	0.768
slof_relationship	58	25.52 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)	25.34 ± 6.18 (13 - 35)	25.69 ± 5.75 (11 - 35)	0.827
satisfaction	58	20.72 ± 6.48 (5 - 30)	19.38 ± 6.06 (5 - 29)	22.07 ± 6.71 (5 - 30)	0.115
mhc_emotional	58	11.19 ± 3.71 (4 - 18)	10.97 ± 3.09 (6 - 17)	11.41 ± 4.28 (4 - 18)	0.649
mhc_social	58	14.50 ± 5.08 (6 - 26)	14.93 ± 5.09 (7 - 26)	14.07 ± 5.12 (6 - 23)	0.523
mhc_psychological	58	21.81 ± 5.97 (6 - 36)	21.48 ± 5.70 (10 - 33)	22.14 ± 6.30 (6 - 36)	0.680
resilisnce	58	16.52 ± 4.57 (6 - 25)	16.28 ± 4.46 (6 - 24)	16.76 ± 4.73 (7 - 25)	0.691
social_provision	58	13.67 ± 3.05 (5 - 20)	13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 20)	13.97 ± 3.36 (5 - 19)	0.469
els_value_living	58	17.16 ± 2.97 (5 - 23)	16.72 ± 2.52 (12 - 22)	17.59 ± 3.35 (5 - 23)	0.273
els_life_fulfill	58	12.86 ± 3.27 (4 - 18)	11.83 ± 3.12 (5 - 17)	13.90 ± 3.14 (4 - 18)	0.015
els	58	30.02 ± 5.54 (9 - 40)	28.55 ± 4.53 (20 - 36)	31.48 ± 6.12 (9 - 40)	0.043
social_connect	58	26.93 ± 9.36 (8 - 48)	26.93 ± 8.11 (8 - 45)	26.93 ± 10.61 (8 - 48)	>0.999
shs_agency	58	14.26 ± 4.58 (3 - 20)	13.66 ± 4.25 (3 - 20)	14.86 ± 4.89 (3 - 20)	0.320
shs_pathway	58	16.50 ± 3.74 (4 - 22)	15.93 ± 3.50 (8 - 22)	17.07 ± 3.95 (4 - 22)	0.250
shs	58	30.76 ± 7.78 (7 - 42)	29.59 ± 7.37 (14 - 41)	31.93 ± 8.12 (7 - 42)	0.255
esteem	58	12.52 ± 1.25 (10 - 15)	12.55 ± 1.15 (10 - 14)	12.48 ± 1.35 (10 - 15)	0.835
mlq_search	58	14.81 ± 3.47 (3 - 21)	14.79 ± 3.27 (6 - 21)	14.83 ± 3.71 (3 - 20)	0.970
mlq_presence	58	13.60 ± 4.06 (3 - 21)	13.86 ± 3.13 (6 - 20)	13.34 ± 4.86 (3 - 21)	0.632
mlq	58	28.41 ± 6.81 (6 - 41)	28.66 ± 6.03 (12 - 40)	28.17 ± 7.62 (6 - 41)	0.790
empower	58	19.55 ± 4.26 (6 - 28)	19.24 ± 3.88 (11 - 24)	19.86 ± 4.67 (6 - 28)	0.584
ismi_resistance	58	14.62 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)	14.48 ± 2.34 (11 - 19)	14.76 ± 3.24 (5 - 20)	0.711
ismi_discrimation	58	11.36 ± 3.40 (5 - 19)	12.41 ± 2.86 (5 - 18)	10.31 ± 3.61 (5 - 19)	0.017
sss_affective	58	9.91 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)	10.66 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)	9.17 ± 4.46 (3 - 18)	0.167
sss_behavior	58	9.66 ± 4.17 (3 - 18)	10.52 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)	8.79 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)	0.116
sss_cognitive	58	8.28 ± 4.20 (3 - 18)	8.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 18)	7.86 ± 4.03 (3 - 18)	0.458
sss	58	27.84 ± 11.56 (9 - 54)	29.86 ± 10.74 (9 - 54)	25.83 ± 12.18 (9 - 54)	0.186
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.21	0.216	2.78, 3.63
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.069	0.305	-0.529, 0.667	0.822
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.671	0.328	0.028, 1.31	0.051
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.188	0.456	-1.08, 0.704	0.682
	Pseudo R square	0.049
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.503	16.9, 18.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.103	0.711	-1.29, 1.50	0.885
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.215	0.749	-1.25, 1.68	0.776
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.684	1.040	-1.35, 2.72	0.515
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.8	0.939	27.9, 31.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.931	1.328	-1.67, 3.53	0.486
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.01	1.248	-1.44, 3.45	0.426
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.223	1.731	-3.62, 3.17	0.898
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.1	0.372	11.3, 12.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.103	0.527	-0.929, 1.14	0.845
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.709	0.448	-1.59, 0.170	0.126
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.751	0.622	-0.468, 1.97	0.238
	Pseudo R square	0.018
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.5	0.570	16.4, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.069	0.806	-1.65, 1.51	0.932
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.677	0.723	-2.09, 0.740	0.356
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.18	1.002	-0.780, 3.15	0.247
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.529	12.0, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.448	0.748	-1.02, 1.91	0.551
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.054	0.503	-1.04, 0.931	0.915
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.29	0.696	-0.072, 2.66	0.076
	Pseudo R square	0.040
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.5	0.418	9.66, 11.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.07	0.591	-2.23, 0.089	0.075
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.318	0.677	-1.64, 1.01	0.641
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.34	0.940	-0.504, 3.18	0.163
	Pseudo R square	0.045
symptom	(Intercept)	29.7	1.838	26.1, 33.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.931	2.600	-4.16, 6.03	0.722
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.851	1.335	-3.47, 1.77	0.530
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.51	1.849	-5.14, 2.11	0.422
	Pseudo R square	0.007
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.4	0.902	20.6, 24.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.379	1.275	-2.88, 2.12	0.767
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.170	0.835	-1.81, 1.47	0.840
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.678	1.157	-2.95, 1.59	0.564
	Pseudo R square	0.007
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	25.3	1.118	23.2, 27.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.345	1.581	-2.75, 3.44	0.828
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.37	1.195	-3.71, 0.973	0.263
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.20	1.657	-2.05, 4.44	0.477
	Pseudo R square	0.008
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.4	1.245	16.9, 21.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.69	1.760	-0.760, 6.14	0.131
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.31	1.577	-0.781, 5.40	0.153
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.91	2.187	-6.20, 2.37	0.389
	Pseudo R square	0.037
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.0	0.697	9.60, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.448	0.985	-1.48, 2.38	0.651
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.898	0.688	-0.450, 2.25	0.204
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.39	0.953	-3.25, 0.483	0.159
	Pseudo R square	0.008
mhc_social	(Intercept)	14.9	0.992	13.0, 16.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.862	1.403	-3.61, 1.89	0.541
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.45	1.221	-0.945, 3.84	0.245
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.803	1.693	-4.12, 2.51	0.639
	Pseudo R square	0.019
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.5	1.177	19.2, 23.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.655	1.664	-2.61, 3.92	0.695
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.30	1.421	-1.49, 4.08	0.369
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.71	1.970	-5.57, 2.15	0.392
	Pseudo R square	0.005
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.821	14.7, 17.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.483	1.161	-1.79, 2.76	0.679
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.01	0.940	-0.828, 2.86	0.291
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.348	1.303	-2.21, 2.90	0.791
	Pseudo R square	0.020
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.4	0.550	12.3, 14.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.586	0.778	-0.939, 2.11	0.454
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.456	0.649	-1.73, 0.816	0.488
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.966	0.900	-0.798, 2.73	0.293
	Pseudo R square	0.026
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.7	0.549	15.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.862	0.777	-0.661, 2.38	0.271
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.706	0.651	-0.569, 1.98	0.287
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.053	0.902	-1.71, 1.82	0.953
	Pseudo R square	0.034
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	11.8	0.575	10.7, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.07	0.813	0.475, 3.66	0.013
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.59	0.692	0.236, 2.95	0.029
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.43	0.959	-3.31, 0.454	0.149
	Pseudo R square	0.092
els	(Intercept)	28.6	1.006	26.6, 30.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.93	1.423	0.143, 5.72	0.043
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.24	1.145	-0.007, 4.48	0.061
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.32	1.587	-4.43, 1.79	0.414
	Pseudo R square	0.072
social_connect	(Intercept)	26.9	1.710	23.6, 30.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.000	2.418	-4.74, 4.74	1.00
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.80	1.268	-0.685, 4.29	0.169
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.442	1.757	-3.89, 3.00	0.803
	Pseudo R square	0.006
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.7	0.865	12.0, 15.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.21	1.223	-1.19, 3.60	0.327
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.478	0.929	-1.34, 2.30	0.611
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.27	1.287	-1.25, 3.80	0.331
	Pseudo R square	0.044
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.9	0.675	14.6, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.14	0.954	-0.732, 3.01	0.238
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.526	0.731	-0.906, 1.96	0.478
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.054	1.013	-1.93, 2.04	0.958
	Pseudo R square	0.030
shs	(Intercept)	29.6	1.430	26.8, 32.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.34	2.022	-1.62, 6.31	0.251
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.921	1.446	-1.91, 3.76	0.530
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.41	2.004	-2.52, 5.34	0.488
	Pseudo R square	0.042
esteem	(Intercept)	12.6	0.222	12.1, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.069	0.314	-0.684, 0.546	0.827
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.994	0.423	0.164, 1.82	0.021
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.560	0.590	-1.72, 0.596	0.345
	Pseudo R square	0.083
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.8	0.637	13.5, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.034	0.900	-1.73, 1.80	0.970
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.552	0.942	-1.29, 2.40	0.563
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.386	1.307	-2.95, 2.18	0.770
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.9	0.744	12.4, 15.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.517	1.052	-2.58, 1.54	0.625
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.739	0.925	-1.07, 2.55	0.431
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.152	1.282	-2.67, 2.36	0.906
	Pseudo R square	0.010
mlq	(Intercept)	28.7	1.262	26.2, 31.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.483	1.784	-3.98, 3.01	0.788
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.27	1.690	-2.04, 4.58	0.460
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.611	2.344	-5.20, 3.98	0.796
	Pseudo R square	0.007
empower	(Intercept)	19.2	0.774	17.7, 20.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.621	1.095	-1.53, 2.77	0.573
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.378	0.544	-0.689, 1.45	0.494
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.130	0.754	-1.35, 1.61	0.865
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.5	0.489	13.5, 15.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.276	0.692	-1.08, 1.63	0.691
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.772	0.708	-0.615, 2.16	0.284
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.538	0.982	-2.46, 1.39	0.588
	Pseudo R square	0.010
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.4	0.612	11.2, 13.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.10	0.866	-3.80, -0.406	0.018
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.22	0.686	-2.57, 0.119	0.086
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.38	0.950	-0.484, 3.24	0.159
	Pseudo R square	0.077
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.7	0.734	9.22, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.48	1.038	-3.52, 0.551	0.158
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.001	0.617	-1.21, 1.21	0.999
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.535	0.855	-2.21, 1.14	0.538
	Pseudo R square	0.044
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.5	0.745	9.06, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.72	1.054	-3.79, 0.342	0.107
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.754	0.693	-2.11, 0.605	0.287
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.746	0.961	-1.14, 2.63	0.444
	Pseudo R square	0.038
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.69	0.782	7.16, 10.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.828	1.106	-3.00, 1.34	0.457
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.596	0.715	-0.806, 2.00	0.413
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.962	0.991	-2.90, 0.981	0.342
	Pseudo R square	0.020
sss	(Intercept)	29.9	2.102	25.7, 34.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-4.03	2.972	-9.86, 1.79	0.180
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.062	1.603	-3.20, 3.08	0.969
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.880	2.220	-5.23, 3.47	0.695
	Pseudo R square	0.036
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.78, 3.63], t(75) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.67], t(75) = 0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [0.03, 1.31], t(75) = 2.04, p = 0.041; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [0.02, 1.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.70], t(75) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.93 (95% CI [16.95, 18.92], t(75) = 35.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.50], t(75) = 0.15, p = 0.884; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.55])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.68], t(75) = 0.29, p = 0.774; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.62])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.72], t(75) = 0.66, p = 0.511; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.00])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [27.92, 31.60], t(75) = 31.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-1.67, 3.53], t(75) = 0.70, p = 0.483; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.69])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.44, 3.45], t(75) = 0.81, p = 0.419; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.68])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.62, 3.17], t(75) = -0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.62])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.34, 12.80], t(75) = 32.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.14], t(75) = 0.20, p = 0.844; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.17], t(75) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.09])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.97], t(75) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.99])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.37, 18.60], t(75) = 30.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.51], t(75) = -0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.09, 0.74], t(75) = -0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.15], t(75) = 1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.00])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.07 (95% CI [12.03, 14.11], t(75) = 24.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.91], t(75) = 0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.66])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.93], t(75) = -0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-0.07, 2.66], t(75) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.91])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.48 (95% CI [9.66, 11.30], t(75) = 25.09, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.09], t(75) = -1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.04])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.64, 1.01], t(75) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.50, 3.18], t(75) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.40])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.66 (95% CI [26.05, 33.26], t(75) = 16.13, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-4.16, 6.03], t(75) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.47, 1.77], t(75) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.18])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-5.14, 2.11], t(75) = -0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.22])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.41 (95% CI [20.65, 24.18], t(75) = 24.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.88, 2.12], t(75) = -0.30, p = 0.766; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.47], t(75) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-2.95, 1.59], t(75) = -0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.33])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.34 (95% CI [23.15, 27.54], t(75) = 22.67, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.75, 3.44], t(75) = 0.22, p = 0.827; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.71, 0.97], t(75) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-2.05, 4.44], t(75) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.75])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.38 (95% CI [16.94, 21.82], t(75) = 15.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-0.76, 6.14], t(75) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.89])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.31, 95% CI [-0.78, 5.40], t(75) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.78])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.91, 95% CI [-6.20, 2.37], t(75) = -0.87, p = 0.382; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.34])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.60, 12.33], t(75) = 15.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.38], t(75) = 0.45, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.65])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.45, 2.25], t(75) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.61])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.39, 95% CI [-3.25, 0.48], t(75) = -1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.13])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [12.99, 16.88], t(75) = 15.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.61, 1.89], t(75) = -0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.35])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [-0.95, 3.84], t(75) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.71])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-4.12, 2.51], t(75) = -0.47, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.47])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.48 (95% CI [19.18, 23.79], t(75) = 18.26, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.61, 3.92], t(75) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-1.49, 4.08], t(75) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.71, 95% CI [-5.57, 2.15], t(75) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.34])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.67, 17.88], t(75) = 19.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.76], t(75) = 0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.83, 2.86], t(75) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.66])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-2.21, 2.90], t(75) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.67])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.30, 14.46], t(75) = 24.31, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.11], t(75) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.71])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.82], t(75) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.80, 2.73], t(75) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.92])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.72 (95% CI [15.65, 17.80], t(75) = 30.44, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.38], t(75) = 1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.79])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.98], t(75) = 1.09, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.65])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.82], t(75) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.60])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [10.70, 12.95], t(75) = 20.56, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [0.47, 3.66], t(75) = 2.54, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.15, 1.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [0.24, 2.95], t(75) = 2.30, p = 0.021; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.07, 0.91])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.31, 0.45], t(75) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.14])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.55 (95% CI [26.58, 30.52], t(75) = 28.38, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.93, 95% CI [0.14, 5.72], t(75) = 2.06, p = 0.039; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [0.03, 1.00])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.24, 95% CI [-6.55e-03, 4.48], t(75) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.15e-03, 0.78])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-4.43, 1.79], t(75) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.31])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.93 (95% CI [23.58, 30.28], t(75) = 15.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.40e-13, 95% CI [-4.74, 4.74], t(75) = -2.65e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -2.97e-15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.51])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.80, 95% CI [-0.68, 4.29], t(75) = 1.42, p = 0.156; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-3.89, 3.00], t(75) = -0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.32])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.66 (95% CI [11.96, 15.35], t(75) = 15.79, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.19, 3.60], t(75) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.76])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.34, 2.30], t(75) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-1.25, 3.80], t(75) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.80])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.61, 17.25], t(75) = 23.61, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.73, 3.01], t(75) = 1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.83])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.91, 1.96], t(75) = 0.72, p = 0.471; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.54])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.04], t(75) = 0.05, p = 0.957; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.56])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.59 (95% CI [26.78, 32.39], t(75) = 20.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.62, 6.31], t(75) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.76], t(75) = 0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.41, 95% CI [-2.52, 5.34], t(75) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.68])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.55 (95% CI [12.12, 12.99], t(75) = 56.54, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.55], t(75) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [0.16, 1.82], t(75) = 2.35, p = 0.019; Std. beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.13, 1.49])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.60], t(75) = -0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.40, 0.49])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.55, 16.04], t(75) = 23.23, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.80], t(75) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-1.29, 2.40], t(75) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.71])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.18], t(75) = -0.30, p = 0.768; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.65])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.86 (95% CI [12.40, 15.32], t(75) = 18.64, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.58, 1.54], t(75) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.07, 2.55], t(75) = 0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 2.36], t(75) = -0.12, p = 0.906; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.66 (95% CI [26.18, 31.13], t(75) = 22.71, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-3.98, 3.01], t(75) = -0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [-2.04, 4.58], t(75) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.69])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-5.20, 3.98], t(75) = -0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.60])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.76e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.24 (95% CI [17.72, 20.76], t(75) = 24.85, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.53, 2.77], t(75) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.45], t(75) = 0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.35])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.61], t(75) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.52, 15.44], t(75) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.63], t(75) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.16], t(75) = 1.09, p = 0.275; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.83])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.39], t(75) = -0.55, p = 0.584; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.53])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.21, 13.61], t(75) = 20.28, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-3.80, -0.41], t(75) = -2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.11, -0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-2.57, 0.12], t(75) = -1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.38, 95% CI [-0.48, 3.24], t(75) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.95])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.22, 12.09], t(75) = 14.52, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-3.52, 0.55], t(75) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10e-03, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.21], t(75) = -1.78e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -2.71e-04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.53, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.14], t(75) = -0.63, p = 0.532; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.28])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.06, 11.98], t(75) = 14.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.79, 0.34], t(75) = -1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.08])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-2.11, 0.60], t(75) = -1.09, p = 0.277; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.14, 2.63], t(75) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.69 (95% CI [7.16, 10.22], t(75) = 11.11, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.00, 1.34], t(75) = -0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.32])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.81, 2.00], t(75) = 0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.48])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-2.90, 0.98], t(75) = -0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.24])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.86 (95% CI [25.74, 33.98], t(75) = 14.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-9.86, 1.79], t(75) = -1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-3.20, 3.08], t(75) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -5.39e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-5.23, 3.47], t(75) = -0.40, p = 0.692; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.30])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	256.368	263.552	-125.184	250.368
recovery_stage_a	random	6	256.176	270.542	-122.088	244.176	6.192	3	0.103
recovery_stage_b	null	3	388.344	395.527	-191.172	382.344
recovery_stage_b	random	6	392.464	406.831	-190.232	380.464	1.880	3	0.598
ras_confidence	null	3	484.772	491.956	-239.386	478.772
ras_confidence	random	6	489.139	503.506	-238.569	477.139	1.633	3	0.652
ras_willingness	null	3	331.998	339.181	-162.999	325.998
ras_willingness	random	6	335.239	349.605	-161.619	323.239	2.759	3	0.430
ras_goal	null	3	401.863	409.046	-197.931	395.863
ras_goal	random	6	406.324	420.691	-197.162	394.324	1.539	3	0.673
ras_reliance	null	3	383.325	390.509	-188.663	377.325
ras_reliance	random	6	381.843	396.210	-184.921	369.843	7.482	3	0.058
ras_domination	null	3	364.040	371.223	-179.020	358.040
ras_domination	random	6	365.442	379.808	-176.721	353.442	4.598	3	0.204
symptom	null	3	569.475	576.658	-281.738	563.475
symptom	random	6	571.660	586.027	-279.830	559.660	3.815	3	0.282
slof_work	null	3	462.513	469.697	-228.257	456.513
slof_work	random	6	467.104	481.471	-227.552	455.104	1.409	3	0.703
slof_relationship	null	3	503.706	510.890	-248.853	497.706
slof_relationship	random	6	508.229	522.596	-248.115	496.229	1.477	3	0.688
satisfaction	null	3	530.970	538.154	-262.485	524.970
satisfaction	random	6	532.823	547.190	-260.411	520.823	4.147	3	0.246
mhc_emotional	null	3	424.478	431.662	-209.239	418.478
mhc_emotional	random	6	428.153	442.520	-208.077	416.153	2.325	3	0.508
mhc_social	null	3	491.257	498.440	-242.628	485.257
mhc_social	random	6	494.886	509.253	-241.443	482.886	2.371	3	0.499
mhc_psychological	null	3	516.719	523.902	-255.359	510.719
mhc_psychological	random	6	521.709	536.076	-254.855	509.709	1.010	3	0.799
resilisnce	null	3	458.822	466.006	-226.411	452.822
resilisnce	random	6	461.093	475.460	-224.546	449.093	3.729	3	0.292
social_provision	null	3	394.019	401.202	-194.009	388.019
social_provision	random	6	397.640	412.007	-192.820	385.640	2.379	3	0.498
els_value_living	null	3	395.653	402.837	-194.827	389.653
els_value_living	random	6	397.498	411.865	-192.749	385.498	4.155	3	0.245
els_life_fulfill	null	3	409.915	417.098	-201.957	403.915
els_life_fulfill	random	6	405.621	419.987	-196.810	393.621	10.294	3	0.016
els	null	3	496.073	503.256	-245.036	490.073
els	random	6	493.791	508.158	-240.896	481.791	8.281	3	0.041
social_connect	null	3	558.135	565.318	-276.067	552.135
social_connect	random	6	560.844	575.211	-274.422	548.844	3.290	3	0.349
shs_agency	null	3	466.499	473.683	-230.250	460.499
shs_agency	random	6	466.790	481.157	-227.395	454.790	5.709	3	0.127
shs_pathway	null	3	423.807	430.991	-208.904	417.807
shs_pathway	random	6	426.993	441.360	-207.496	414.993	2.814	3	0.421
shs	null	3	544.832	552.016	-269.416	538.832
shs	random	6	545.675	560.042	-266.838	533.675	5.157	3	0.161
esteem	null	3	268.021	275.204	-131.010	262.021
esteem	random	6	266.699	281.066	-127.350	254.699	7.321	3	0.062
mlq_search	null	3	424.817	432.000	-209.408	418.817
mlq_search	random	6	430.425	444.791	-209.212	418.425	0.392	3	0.942
mlq_presence	null	3	444.036	451.219	-219.018	438.036
mlq_presence	random	6	448.606	462.973	-218.303	436.606	1.430	3	0.699
mlq	null	3	532.196	539.380	-263.098	526.196
mlq	random	6	537.302	551.669	-262.651	525.302	0.894	3	0.827
empower	null	3	426.004	433.188	-210.002	420.004
empower	random	6	430.115	444.482	-209.057	418.115	1.890	3	0.596
ismi_resistance	null	3	382.323	389.507	-188.162	376.323
ismi_resistance	random	6	386.921	401.288	-187.461	374.921	1.402	3	0.705
ismi_discrimation	null	3	414.589	421.772	-204.294	408.589
ismi_discrimation	random	6	412.671	427.038	-200.336	400.671	7.918	3	0.048
sss_affective	null	3	426.804	433.988	-210.402	420.804
sss_affective	random	6	429.454	443.820	-208.727	417.454	3.351	3	0.341
sss_behavior	null	3	434.033	441.216	-214.017	428.033
sss_behavior	random	6	436.429	450.796	-212.214	424.429	3.604	3	0.307
sss_cognitive	null	3	439.462	446.645	-216.731	433.462
sss_cognitive	random	6	443.504	457.871	-215.752	431.504	1.958	3	0.581
sss	null	3	592.056	599.240	-293.028	586.056
sss	random	6	595.537	609.903	-291.768	583.537	2.520	3	0.472

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	29	3.21 ± 1.16		29	3.28 ± 1.16		0.822	-0.082
recovery_stage_a	2nd	11	3.88 ± 1.10	-0.798	12	3.76 ± 1.10	-0.574	0.795	0.142
recovery_stage_b	1st	29	17.93 ± 2.71		29	18.03 ± 2.71		0.885	-0.054
recovery_stage_b	2nd	11	18.15 ± 2.53	-0.113	12	18.93 ± 2.54	-0.470	0.460	-0.412
ras_confidence	1st	29	29.76 ± 5.06		29	30.69 ± 5.06		0.486	-0.299
ras_confidence	2nd	11	30.77 ± 4.47	-0.323	12	31.47 ± 4.50	-0.252	0.706	-0.227
ras_willingness	1st	29	12.07 ± 2.01		29	12.17 ± 2.01		0.845	-0.094
ras_willingness	2nd	11	11.36 ± 1.69	0.642	12	12.21 ± 1.71	-0.037	0.233	-0.773
ras_goal	1st	29	17.48 ± 3.07		29	17.41 ± 3.07		0.932	0.038
ras_goal	2nd	11	16.81 ± 2.65	0.378	12	17.92 ± 2.68	-0.283	0.319	-0.622
ras_reliance	1st	29	13.07 ± 2.85		29	13.52 ± 2.85		0.551	-0.369
ras_reliance	2nd	11	13.02 ± 2.19	0.044	12	14.76 ± 2.23	-1.021	0.063	-1.435
ras_domination	1st	29	10.48 ± 2.25		29	9.41 ± 2.25		0.075	0.605
ras_domination	2nd	11	10.16 ± 2.19	0.180	12	10.43 ± 2.19	-0.578	0.769	-0.153
symptom	1st	29	29.66 ± 9.90		29	30.59 ± 9.90		0.722	-0.293
symptom	2nd	11	28.80 ± 7.02	0.267	12	28.22 ± 7.21	0.743	0.845	0.183
slof_work	1st	29	22.41 ± 4.86		29	22.03 ± 4.86		0.767	0.188
slof_work	2nd	11	22.24 ± 3.69	0.085	12	21.19 ± 3.77	0.421	0.499	0.525
slof_relationship	1st	29	25.34 ± 6.02		29	25.69 ± 6.02		0.828	-0.118
slof_relationship	2nd	11	23.98 ± 4.83	0.471	12	25.52 ± 4.90	0.059	0.450	-0.530
satisfaction	1st	29	19.38 ± 6.70		29	22.07 ± 6.70		0.131	-0.688
satisfaction	2nd	11	21.69 ± 5.79	-0.591	12	22.47 ± 5.84	-0.102	0.749	-0.199
mhc_emotional	1st	29	10.97 ± 3.75		29	11.41 ± 3.75		0.651	-0.269
mhc_emotional	2nd	11	11.86 ± 2.92	-0.539	12	10.93 ± 2.97	0.293	0.448	0.563
mhc_social	1st	29	14.93 ± 5.34		29	14.07 ± 5.34		0.541	0.286
mhc_social	2nd	11	16.38 ± 4.55	-0.480	12	14.71 ± 4.60	-0.214	0.386	0.552
mhc_psychological	1st	29	21.48 ± 6.34		29	22.14 ± 6.34		0.695	-0.187
mhc_psychological	2nd	11	22.78 ± 5.35	-0.370	12	21.72 ± 5.41	0.118	0.639	0.302
resilisnce	1st	29	16.28 ± 4.42		29	16.76 ± 4.42		0.679	-0.210
resilisnce	2nd	11	17.29 ± 3.65	-0.440	12	18.12 ± 3.69	-0.591	0.589	-0.361
social_provision	1st	29	13.38 ± 2.96		29	13.97 ± 2.96		0.454	-0.367
social_provision	2nd	11	12.92 ± 2.48	0.286	12	14.48 ± 2.51	-0.319	0.140	-0.972
els_value_living	1st	29	16.72 ± 2.96		29	17.59 ± 2.96		0.271	-0.539
els_value_living	2nd	11	17.43 ± 2.48	-0.441	12	18.35 ± 2.51	-0.475	0.382	-0.572
els_life_fulfill	1st	29	11.83 ± 3.10		29	13.90 ± 3.10		0.013	-1.213
els_life_fulfill	2nd	11	13.42 ± 2.61	-0.934	12	14.06 ± 2.64	-0.097	0.560	-0.376
els	1st	29	28.55 ± 5.42		29	31.48 ± 5.42		0.044	-1.045
els	2nd	11	30.79 ± 4.46	-0.798	12	32.40 ± 4.52	-0.329	0.391	-0.576
social_connect	1st	29	26.93 ± 9.21		29	26.93 ± 9.21		1.000	0.000
social_connect	2nd	11	28.73 ± 6.56	-0.595	12	28.29 ± 6.74	-0.449	0.874	0.146
shs_agency	1st	29	13.66 ± 4.66		29	14.86 ± 4.66		0.328	-0.534
shs_agency	2nd	11	14.13 ± 3.74	-0.211	12	16.61 ± 3.80	-0.775	0.119	-1.097
shs_pathway	1st	29	15.93 ± 3.63		29	17.07 ± 3.63		0.238	-0.638
shs_pathway	2nd	11	16.46 ± 2.93	-0.295	12	17.65 ± 2.97	-0.326	0.336	-0.669
shs	1st	29	29.59 ± 7.70		29	31.93 ± 7.70		0.251	-0.669
shs	2nd	11	30.51 ± 6.05	-0.263	12	34.26 ± 6.15	-0.665	0.144	-1.071
esteem	1st	29	12.55 ± 1.20		29	12.48 ± 1.20		0.827	0.058
esteem	2nd	11	13.55 ± 1.23	-0.831	12	12.92 ± 1.23	-0.363	0.224	0.526
mlq_search	1st	29	14.79 ± 3.43		29	14.83 ± 3.43		0.970	-0.014
mlq_search	2nd	11	15.34 ± 3.19	-0.230	12	14.99 ± 3.21	-0.069	0.793	0.147
mlq_presence	1st	29	13.86 ± 4.00		29	13.34 ± 4.00		0.625	0.226
mlq_presence	2nd	11	14.60 ± 3.43	-0.323	12	13.93 ± 3.46	-0.256	0.643	0.293
mlq	1st	29	28.66 ± 6.79		29	28.17 ± 6.79		0.788	0.114
mlq	2nd	11	29.92 ± 6.02	-0.300	12	28.83 ± 6.07	-0.155	0.666	0.259
empower	1st	29	19.24 ± 4.17		29	19.86 ± 4.17		0.573	-0.479
empower	2nd	11	19.62 ± 2.93	-0.292	12	20.37 ± 3.02	-0.392	0.547	-0.579
ismi_resistance	1st	29	14.48 ± 2.64		29	14.76 ± 2.64		0.691	-0.154
ismi_resistance	2nd	11	15.25 ± 2.43	-0.430	12	14.99 ± 2.44	-0.130	0.797	0.146
ismi_discrimation	1st	29	12.41 ± 3.30		29	10.31 ± 3.30		0.018	1.255
ismi_discrimation	2nd	11	11.19 ± 2.70	0.730	12	10.46 ± 2.73	-0.092	0.524	0.432
sss_affective	1st	29	10.66 ± 3.95		29	9.17 ± 3.95		0.158	1.001
sss_affective	2nd	11	10.65 ± 2.92	0.001	12	8.64 ± 2.98	0.362	0.105	1.363
sss_behavior	1st	29	10.52 ± 4.01		29	8.79 ± 4.01		0.107	1.032
sss_behavior	2nd	11	9.76 ± 3.06	0.451	12	8.79 ± 3.12	0.004	0.450	0.585
sss_cognitive	1st	29	8.69 ± 4.21		29	7.86 ± 4.21		0.457	0.480
sss_cognitive	2nd	11	9.29 ± 3.19	-0.346	12	7.50 ± 3.26	0.212	0.187	1.038
sss	1st	29	29.86 ± 11.32		29	25.83 ± 11.32		0.180	1.054
sss	2nd	11	29.80 ± 8.12	0.016	12	24.89 ± 8.33	0.246	0.156	1.284

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(69.24) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.68)

2st

t(69.44) = -0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.80)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(68.55) = 0.15, p = 0.885, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.52)

2st

t(69.22) = 0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.90)

ras_confidence

1st

t(65.33) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.58)

2st

t(69.52) = 0.38, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.03 to 4.44)

ras_willingness

1st

t(63.28) = 0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.16)

2st

t(71.19) = 1.20, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.56 to 2.27)

ras_goal

1st

t(64.29) = -0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.68 to 1.54)

2st

t(70.21) = 1.00, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.10 to 3.33)

ras_reliance

1st

t(60.15) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.94)

2st

t(75.89) = 1.89, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -1.43, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.58)

ras_domination

1st

t(71.60) = -1.81, p = 0.075, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.25 to 0.11)

2st

t(70.84) = 0.29, p = 0.769, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.56 to 2.10)

symptom

1st

t(58.28) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-4.27 to 6.13)

2st

t(76.41) = -0.20, p = 0.845, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-6.49 to 5.33)

slof_work

1st

t(59.92) = -0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.93 to 2.17)

2st

t(76.23) = -0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-4.16 to 2.04)

slof_relationship

1st

t(61.46) = 0.22, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.82 to 3.51)

2st

t(73.75) = 0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-2.50 to 5.59)

satisfaction

1st

t(64.27) = 1.53, p = 0.131, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.83 to 6.21)

2st

t(70.22) = 0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-4.06 to 5.62)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(60.53) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.42)

2st

t(75.30) = -0.76, p = 0.448, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.51)

mhc_social

1st

t(63.68) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.67 to 1.94)

2st

t(70.76) = -0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.47 to 2.14)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(63.34) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.67 to 3.98)

2st

t(71.12) = -0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.54 to 3.42)

resilisnce

1st

t(62.45) = 0.42, p = 0.679, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.84 to 2.80)

2st

t(72.25) = 0.54, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.22 to 3.89)

social_provision

1st

t(62.93) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.97 to 2.14)

2st

t(71.61) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.97, 95% CI (-0.52 to 3.63)

els_value_living

1st

t(62.99) = 1.11, p = 0.271, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.41)

2st

t(71.53) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.16 to 2.99)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(63.27) = 2.54, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.21, 95% CI (0.44 to 3.69)

2st

t(71.20) = 0.59, p = 0.560, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.83)

els

1st

t(62.34) = 2.06, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.09 to 5.77)

2st

t(72.39) = 0.86, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.12 to 5.35)

social_connect

1st

t(58.39) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-4.84 to 4.84)

2st

t(76.60) = -0.16, p = 0.874, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-5.97 to 5.08)

shs_agency

1st

t(61.52) = 0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.65)

2st

t(73.66) = 1.58, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -1.10, 95% CI (-0.65 to 5.62)

shs_pathway

1st

t(61.64) = 1.19, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.77 to 3.05)

2st

t(73.47) = 0.97, p = 0.336, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.65)

shs

1st

t(60.79) = 1.16, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-1.70 to 6.39)

2st

t(74.86) = 1.48, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 8.82)

esteem

1st

t(77.00) = -0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.56)

2st

t(77.00) = -1.23, p = 0.224, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.65 to 0.39)

mlq_search

1st

t(68.31) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.83)

2st

t(69.16) = -0.26, p = 0.793, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-3.02 to 2.31)

mlq_presence

1st

t(63.89) = -0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.58)

2st

t(70.56) = -0.47, p = 0.643, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-3.54 to 2.20)

mlq

1st

t(65.52) = -0.27, p = 0.788, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-4.05 to 3.08)

2st

t(69.44) = -0.43, p = 0.666, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-6.13 to 3.94)

empower

1st

t(58.13) = 0.57, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.57 to 2.81)

2st

t(76.05) = 0.60, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.22)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(67.61) = 0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.11 to 1.66)

2st

t(69.06) = -0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.76)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(62.10) = -2.43, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.83 to -0.37)

2st

t(72.75) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.98 to 1.53)

sss_affective

1st

t(59.15) = -1.43, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-3.56 to 0.59)

2st

t(76.95) = -1.64, p = 0.105, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-4.47 to 0.43)

sss_behavior

1st

t(59.95) = -1.64, p = 0.107, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.38)

2st

t(76.17) = -0.76, p = 0.450, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-3.54 to 1.59)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(59.80) = -0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.04 to 1.39)

2st

t(76.37) = -1.33, p = 0.187, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-4.47 to 0.89)

sss

1st

t(58.54) = -1.36, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 1.05, 95% CI (-9.98 to 1.91)

2st

t(76.79) = -1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = 1.28, 95% CI (-11.75 to 1.92)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(30.85) = 1.50, p = 0.287, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.14)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(30.17) = 1.23, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.60 to 2.40)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(27.34) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.28)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(25.75) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.94)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(26.51) = 0.72, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.95)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(23.57) = 2.55, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.24)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(33.48) = 1.54, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(22.38) = -1.84, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.30)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(23.42) = -1.05, p = 0.607, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-2.51 to 0.82)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(24.46) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.56 to 2.21)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(26.50) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.75 to 3.55)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(23.83) = -0.73, p = 0.942, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.89)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(26.05) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 3.08)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(25.80) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.25 to 2.42)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(25.15) = 1.50, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.51 to 3.24)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(25.50) = 0.81, p = 0.851, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.79 to 1.81)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(25.54) = 1.20, p = 0.480, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(25.75) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.55)

els

1st vs 2st

t(25.08) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.36 to 3.21)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(22.45) = 1.11, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.17 to 3.89)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(24.50) = 1.95, p = 0.125, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-0.10 to 3.61)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(24.58) = 0.82, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.04)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(24.00) = 1.67, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.56 to 5.22)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(47.29) = 1.04, p = 0.610, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.28)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(29.94) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.05)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(26.21) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.43)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(27.49) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.72 to 4.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(22.28) = 0.97, p = 0.685, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.59)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(29.29) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.65)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(24.90) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.52)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(22.93) = -0.90, p = 0.754, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.70)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(23.44) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.38)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(23.35) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(22.54) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-4.14 to 2.25)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(31.59) = 2.01, p = 0.107, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.35)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(30.86) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.77)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(27.78) = 0.80, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.60)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(26.08) = -1.56, p = 0.260, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-1.64 to 0.22)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(26.89) = -0.92, p = 0.727, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.18 to 0.83)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(23.74) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.99)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(34.47) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 1.09)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(22.46) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.63 to 1.93)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(23.57) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.91 to 1.57)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(24.69) = -1.14, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.86 to 1.12)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(26.88) = 1.45, p = 0.319, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.97 to 5.59)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(24.01) = 1.30, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.33)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(26.40) = 1.17, p = 0.504, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.99)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(26.12) = 0.90, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.66 to 4.25)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(25.43) = 1.07, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.97)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(25.80) = -0.69, p = 0.987, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.81 to 0.89)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(25.85) = 1.07, p = 0.586, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(26.07) = 2.27, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (0.15 to 3.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(25.35) = 1.93, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.14 to 4.62)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(22.53) = 1.41, p = 0.342, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.84 to 4.44)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(24.73) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.45 to 2.41)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(24.82) = 0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.05)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(24.20) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.93)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(49.53) = 2.30, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.86)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(30.60) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.51)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(26.57) = 0.79, p = 0.874, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-1.18 to 2.66)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(27.94) = 0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.24 to 4.78)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(22.36) = 0.69, p = 0.992, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(29.90) = 1.07, p = 0.584, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(25.16) = -1.77, p = 0.178, Cohen d = 0.73, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.20)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(23.05) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.28)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(23.60) = -1.08, p = 0.582, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.69)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(23.50) = 0.83, p = 0.832, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(22.63) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.40 to 3.27)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance